Mann throws Jones under the bus

It has started – the infighting begins in the court of public opinion.

Climategate: Phil Jones accused of making error of judgment by colleague

Here’s an excerpt:

One of the scientists to whom the emails were addressed, Professor Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University has moved to distance himself from some of the comments in the emails that suggest scientists did not want the IPCC, the UN body charged with monitoring climate change, to consider studies that challenged the view global warming was genuine and man-made.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: “I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.”

Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.

“I can’t justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that’s clear.”

Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.

Complete story here at the Telegraph:

Climategate: Phil Jones accused of making error of judgment by colleague

h/t to Kate at SDA

About these ads

202 thoughts on “Mann throws Jones under the bus

  1. PSU can’t (won’t) discuss the issue wrt Mann because they started an investigation, but Mann is free to dig his hole deeper?

  2. These guys are frightened, and they should be. Jone, Mann et. al. have been perpetrating a massive fraud. They, the media who have and continue to protect them, and the politicians who willingly suspend disbelief should be ripped to shreds in the public square.

    What they have done is indefensible. It is indefensible.

  3. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
    YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!

  4. Jones should not go down for this by himself. The emails are crystal clear. There was a group working in concert to promote AGW and stifle dissenting views. Inability to prove their theoretical concept valid in the field resulted in fabricating false proofs: fudge factors, data mining, cherry picking, ersatz global models, and so on. But their worst lie was the claim of consensus. They should all be castigated for that in particular.

  5. Mann is still on his ego trip.

    If he had any good judgement, he would keep quiet. This endeavor on his part may backfire. He also Will find Jones may counter attack him. Mann needs to take a time out and go to Siberia and look at some tree rings on a field trip.
    He will need a lot more tree rings. He also needs some cooler tree rings from the Midevil warm period. Mannipulate the Mid-evil period soon before you get investigated.

  6. It’s like a crime drama on TV. “Common Jonesy your mate in the other cell says you did it. Unless you come clean you’re going down for a long stretch!”

  7. Given the tone(casual) of some of the e-mails, I’d say Mann is being a little disingenuous. I’d really like a peek at some of his. Perhaps in the Senate hearings but I’d imagine by now, Mann has deleted his incriminating ones. Of course, servers have backups and archives…….

  8. As far as “cherry picking” is concerned there is a significant difference between someone “cherry picking” data to prove a theory and another person who picks instances that disprove a theory.

    “Exceptio probat regnum.” The exception probes (tests) the rule.

    (not “the exception proves the rule” because the modern meaning of “prove” has become to show truth)

    It really gets my goat when these frauds accuse sceptics of “cherry picking” when they are pointing out failures in their theories. That is not “cherry picking”, that is science.

  9. Now he has our undivided attention all he needs to do is release all his data and computer programs to the world and we will all see he is innocent of any wrong doing.
    [/sarc]

  10. “I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions”

    Those nasty sceptics trying to get him to release his data so the science can be verified.

  11. If Mann considers this request so beyond the pale, then he MUST have let Jones know at the time, right? While I can certainly grant that it’s human nature to not want to inform on a friend/colleague, I would think that at a bare minimum (as a ‘respected’ scientist) he should be expected to respond saying that he will not be deleting any E-mails and that such a practice is highly inappropriate and possibly illegal.

  12. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data”

    I beg to differ. Evidence of flight can be used against someone accused of a crime even though running away in itself is not a crime. Hiding data and methods in itself is not proof of fraud, but it is evidence. In this case it is a necessary condition for fraud. If Mann had released his data and methods including that data he had but did not use, there would be no suggestion that he was involved in climategate.

  13. It’s time for Penn State to save it’s reputation and throw Mann under the bus.

    They could previously claim ignorance. They don’t have that excuse anymore.

  14. What I find amazing is the charge, repeated once again by Mann, that skeptics wish to influence climate change related policy decisions for their own benefit. From the Telegraph article:
    “Prof Mann said he believed the incident “false controversy” manufactured by sceptics “to distract the public and to distract policy-makers to try to thwart efforts next week in Copenhagen”. ”
    It reads like they believe that skeptics know or suspect that AGW is real but wish to stand in the way of actions that would fix the problem anyway.
    The truth is that skeptics live on this planet too and want to make it as pleasant a place to live as anyone. We just don’t believe the reality of AGW has yet been proven. And until it is we see no good reason to take actions that would have an immense negative impact on the global economy.
    Skeptical scientists and others have been asking for access to data and data processing computer code for a decade now in an attempt to confirm or deny the reality of AGW and at every turn the AGW crowd has fought this.
    Why?

  15. I guess Mann forgot about this

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

    Hi Phil,

    laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
    have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
    have been true.

    I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    talk to you later,

    mike

    Phil Jones wrote:
    >
    >> Mike,
    > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    > Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    >
    > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
    > have his new email address.
    >
    > We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
    >
    > I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
    > paper!!
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil
    >

  16. Emails are interesting in that they point to intent, but they alone are not proof. Media will continue to make light of the emails as “insubstantial,” and rightly so.

    Media won’t pick it up until a scandal develops. It won’t be a scandal until there’s evidence pointing to purposeful manipulation of the temperature record. This evidence will be found only in the computer code.

    Over half of the released documents were computer code.

    Every blog, news site, personal conversation, email to your elected representative, or post, keep the focus on the computer code. We’ve already seen evidence of manipulation in parts of it. There’s more. It must be uncovered by analysis of what’s released, and working to ensure the release of the remainder via whatever (legal) means necessary: media request, FOI, congressional subpoena.

    KEEP WORKING THE CODE

  17. Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.

    This is what I call a “laughable statement”.

  18. Let the the back-stabbing begin!

    I have a faint hope that one or two of Mann’s or Jones’s colleagues will break rank, and start singing if they think the proverbial poo is going to hit the fan.

    Though a sceptic based on the fact sceince is not absolute, i never actually thought there was a grand conspiracy. I am really wondering about it now.

    What i find as alarming as the CRU emails is how much of the media is gaming the reporting in a totally unambiguous way. Its like they dont care how biased and dishonest they look any more.

    It makes me feel sick thinking our society is this morally and intellectually dishonest.

  19. Wait until somebody starts to investigate the infractions under the FOI legislation and we start hearing about enforcement actions. Then we will really see the guns being turned inwards and find out who deleted what. If the police found that the Wall St. guys “rolled” much more easily than the Mob, how long will it take before a crew of academics start to offer evidence against the others in exchange for a deal? At least the Wall St. guys have some experience with tough negotiations. The FOI prosecutors will have the deal negotiated and papered by noon on Day 1.

  20. Call me a different kind of skeptic, if you will…I think PSU will clear him of any wrong-doing and that he is banking on using that as his eternal declaration of innocence.

  21. @AJStrata

    Mike,
    > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    > Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis
    End of part post

    In the report above Professor Mann says Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.

    Then no doubt he repsonde appropriately and would like to share his response with the wider world.

    Unreal Climate seems to be treating Professor Jones like a leper? No articles re the resignation no support?

    Have I been moderated today? On another post?

  22. Much will depend upon what Penn St lawyer’s think. If there is an inkling that they will face legal exposure, they will have to make a decision whether Dr Mann will be a financial liability. Civil suits have a way of uncovering all sorts of embarrassing and questionable behavior. Federal investigation have begun on much less material. This entire mess has the potential to do bring the entire AGW industry to its knees.

  23. Mann’s ego is only surpassed by his incompetence. He will be the last to surrender. I would watch Schmidt and Wigley, because they are much more exposed to federal rules and guidelines. They have no place to hide.

  24. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.”

    Wow! He’s obviously a pathogical liar as well. Didn’t McIntyre catch him outright with his “hockey stick” graph?

  25. Fortunately for Dr. Mann, Penn State main campus has low carbon footprint buses powered by natural gas.

    Being thrown under such a bus would be an honor.

  26. This small, tightly-knit group were never friends – they were accomplices. It will be no surprise, as their project unravels, that they start to attack each other.

    Listening to Mann on several of his recent interviews, it is possible to discern a shake in his voice. Outside of the tax-funded, cock-sure collusion of the laboratory, it may be that the seriousness of what they were doing is beginning to dawn on Mann. It may also be a tell-tale sign of his guilt.

  27. It seems he doesn’t want to resign as instructed by his patrons.
    As Piers Corbyn said yesterday about Phil Jones’ step aside:
    “This is a token intended to enable a coverup of the shameful suppression of differing science and the hiding of data on world cooling by those in charge of this data”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/23595663

  28. Please be sure to send a copy of that email to the President of Penn State.

    He may not see it otherwise, and I’m sure he’d be interested… Oh, and be sure to CC the Washington Times et al on your email

  29. It’s hard to believe in 2009 (almost 2010) that these allegedly intelligent people don’t understand how email works. You can delete email from your own personal store, but one or more copies will continue to exist on one or more servers (archive, backup, audit, whatever) somewhere within the organization.

    Not only are they boneheads for conspiring to delete email, they are doubly-boneheaded to think it was possible to do so!

  30. BBC1 6pm news just ran a piece on Climategate, mentioned Saudi concerns about what Climategate means for climate science and Copenhagen…

  31. Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he TOO had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.

    I have not ALSO manipulated data. Meaning Jones has? Is that an admission?

    OK Jones has manipulated data – thats confirmed. Now we just have to nail you and Schmidt and Wigley

  32. How many “data sets” are relied upon by the scientists and politicians in this matter? How many have the raw data publicly available?

    How many data sets are bogus “proxies” like using one tree in Russia to determine world climate?

    How can any “scientist” believe AGW when the data is so suspect?

  33. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
    YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!

    It has been said before: Don’t attribute to malevolence what when incompetence will suffice.

  34. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was ‘absolutely no evidence’ that he too had manipulated data”

    That is the Bart Simpson defense – “I didn’t do it, no one saw me do it, you can’t prove anything!”

  35. “Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: ‘I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.’”

    Where is his contemporaneous e-mail reply documenting his disapproval to the suggestion to delete e-mails?

    qui tacet consentire videtur

  36. Mann’s statement doesn’t quite yet qualify as throwing Jones under the bus, IMO. It’s more like shifting himself behind Jones as the bus approaches. The big shove is yet to come.

  37. There must be another whistle-blower lurking somewhere in the bowels of one of these great, scientific institutions. Someone who has knowledge of other e-mails or of more ‘value added’ data proving what a crock the AGW theory is. Perhaps he/she looks in on this and other such sites to see which way the wind is blowing. Well, I’d say the wind would be well and truly at the back of anyone who would now raise their head and whistle another merry tune.

    Need some more encouragement, mr/mrs/miss/ms whistle-blower? Imagine the kudos for having put the last nail in the coffin of AGW; imagine the book-rights, the tv interviews, the (I knew it all along) politicians desperate to be photographed shaking you hand… on second thoughts, forget that last one. Imagine also, the gratitude of the vast majority of honest mortals in your profession who are being painted with the same dirty brush of institutionalized corruption currently being used to blacken forever the reputations of your once, beyond-reproach leaders.

    All together now, “Whistle while you work…”

  38. I notice that they’re making accusations of media manipulation.

    Let me say that again – the ALARMISTS are accusing the SKEPTICS of media manipulation.

    Are you kidding me??? That would be like John Kerry calling Larry the Cable Guy a snob.

    I suppose they’re all upset because this occurred right between the GE/NBC “tips for living greener” week and the Rock Star President’s jetting off to Copenhagen to attend the Climate Summit (while picking up the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him for… well, awarded to him).

    Cheer up, guys, it could have been far worse – it could have been timed to ruin the week-long Earth Day festival of public school enviro-indoctrination. Or it could have coincided with the DVD release of An Inconvenient Truth (or its made-for-TV cousin The Day After).

  39. So many of his correspondences raise questions. Eg.

    From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Re: Something far more interesting
    Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
    Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Dear Phil,

    Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some
    direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and
    the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and
    synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked
    by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with
    you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with
    manufactured biases/etc remains high priority.
    It sounds like it
    would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some
    overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal
    of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that
    in the least.

    Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing
    of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to
    make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly
    thing in the world.

    In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you
    need from me (cv, etc.).

    cheers,

    mike

    If you’e studying counterfeiting, that could make you good at avoiding counterfeiting, or…

  40. Dave (10:23:10) : That is the Bart Simpson defense – “I didn’t do it, no one saw me do it, you can’t prove anything!”

    Actually, it’s the OJ Simpson defense. Only in this case, the glove fits.

  41. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
    OK so which definition of manipulate does he mean?
    1. To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner:
    2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously:
    3. To tamper with or falsify for personal gain:

  42. “What I find amazing is the charge, repeated once again by Mann, that skeptics wish to influence climate change related policy decisions for their own benefit. From the Telegraph article:”

    This is known as projection. He accuses his others of doing what he is himself doing

  43. Jerry, I too went to PSU (’82 Geophysics) it the same College as Mann (E&MS). I’ve written them and strongly demended that they look into this thoroughly and not just whitewash it. They responded with a form letter which didn’t make me feel confident. They cite an investigation (academic) in 2006 into his seminal work which makes me believe that they are going to say that it’s been done. But that was then and this is now and there are new facts that should make this investigation shall we say, very different. We can hope. Copy attached for those curious…

    Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.

    In recent days a lengthy file of e-mails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those e-mails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

  44. PaulH (10:16:37) :

    “It’s hard to believe in 2009 (almost 2010) that these allegedly intelligent people don’t understand how email works”
    You are right, then all the raw data they supposedly deleted can be found in a lot of servers around the world.
    That’s for a new WUWT post: “Raw CRU data recovered!”, that would be great.

  45. If Mann didn’t manipulate data, the lack of competance in his work must be staggering! Funny, how that seems to always support AGW.

  46. ” Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.”

    Does that sentence imply he knew that what was being said was wrong, but did nothing about it at the time? It would have been easy to have written a note to Jones to advise against – any sign of that on the record?

    “I can’t justify the action, …”

    Same question: what did he do about it at the time?

    Where do professional responsibility and moral authority come into all of this? Or is it only appearances that count – do they only matter when they get into the public domain?

    So my request would be for evidence of having consistently occupied the moral and professional high ground now as well as back then.

  47. Yes, there may be another whistle-blower waiting for the right moment.
    I do not have any faith in the statements of those who hid thier formulas/data and barred access to peer review. Until it’s out in the open, it is classified junk.

  48. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”
    OK so which definition of manipulate does he mean?
    1. To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner:
    2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously:
    3. To tamper with or falsify for personal gain:
    “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”

    Ah! I’ve just worked it out. He means it in the medical sense…
    To handle and move in an examination or for therapeutic purposes:
    …and the data in question is out of Star Trek NG.

  49. Here is something to keep in mind about the two University investigations. The UEA would not be known outside of a small portion of England if it wasn’t for the CRU. The CRU is a cash cow for the UEA because it attracts students to it’s programs, brings prestige being used by the IPCC and so forth. So the UEA has a financial interest to make sure nothing happens to the CRU’s reputation.

    On the Other hand Penn State is the exact opposite. The PSU football team brings in more money to the University in one year then Mann has in the entire time he has been there. You ask most people what is the first thing they think about when you say Penn State and its Joe Patnero and the Football team. So the University doesn’t have a large financial interest in Mann, its all about prestige and if Upside Down keeps running his mouth, PSU might decide he is not worth the aggrivation.

  50. Circular firing squad forming up.

    “Hard Science” is on trial here, real scientists best get off their grants and speak up, before it’s too late. Time is growing critically short.

  51. I think Mann was just a lot more circumspect and smart enough not to incriminate himself by email. My guess is that Americans in general – certainly educated ones that read the news occasionally – ought to understand the potential for courts, etc. to go spelunking around in an institution’s files and computers.

    Note his response to Jones’ request to delete email messages was neither a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ but just the address of someone else Jones wanted to contact about doing so.

  52. The computer code is what is important here. Code is the automated process to turn data into results. It’s meta-math.

    I think of this code as like Hamilton’s mathematical proof of Poincare’s Conjecture. He suggested using “surgery” to iron out singularities in a 3-manifold. But he couldn’t say HOW – and so, not only did he not get the credit, but his whole method was discredited. (Hamilton himself warned readers that this was not a full proof, so please understand this as NOT an attack on Hamilton’s genius or integrity.) Grisha Perelman showed us how to use his method, and so he got the credit.

    I don’t have a problem with “surgery” in the code – as long as it has documentation that it’s there because of the data and not because of the result (the latter is cheating). So if your code is undocumented such that it looks like it does its surgery arbitrarily, it’s a “Hamiltonian” partial solution at best, and doesn’t prove anything.

  53. I think Mann is going to discover there’s plenty of room under the bus for him, too. The emails make it pretty clear that even Briffa did not believe in Mann’s anti-Medieval-Warming use of Briffa’s work.

  54. Excellent.
    Next, we will see some papers withdrawn.
    But until the IPCC itself is shown as the propaganda sock puppet it is, we will not be able to see policy makers find face-saving ways out of this mess.
    the real story will be when some very enterprising reporter follows the money.
    There is a great huge money train in this to follow.

  55. “absolutely no evidence that he had manipulated data”

    I laugh every time someone (usually a politician) uses this defense.
    He didn’t say he didn’t do it, just that there was no evidence that he did it.

  56. Another article on Copenhagen from the BBC.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stm

    I loved this bit –

    “There is a consensus among the world’s scientists that climate change is real and there’s a need to confront it,” said Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University in the US, a leading palaeoclimatologist.

    “Those who are advocating inaction, that don’t want to see progress in Copenhagen, don’t have science on their side.

    “Instead they’ve manufactured this false controversy to distract the public and to distract policymakers, to try to thwart progress in Copenhagen.”

  57. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”

    He did not say “I did not manipulate data.”

    Just for those, like me, who are not too well up on Bart/OJ Simpson.

  58. Jerry (09:58:49) :

    “And I went to Penn State too, dammit!”

    gwhiz (10:46:17) :

    “Jerry, I too went to PSU (‘82 Geophysics) it the same College as Mann (E&MS). I’ve written them and strongly demended that they look into this thoroughly and not just whitewash it. They responded with a form letter which didn’t make me feel confident. ”

    I didn’t attend PSU, but my son just graduated from there, so I took it upon myself to write a letter to the _Collegian_, the student paper. I submitted it online, and yesterday got a call from a nice young man up there to confirm I’d written the letter. It was published today — you can see it here ( http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/03/psus_investigation_integral_in.aspx) if you like.

    Another letter from an actual alum was published on the 1st, so at least the student paper is open to comments about the investigation.

    The rest of you PSU alums — get crackin’!

  59. Do these ‘scientists’ have to disclose their financial data? It would be interesting to see if any of them have made money off trading carbon offsets.

  60. mikey (09:55:26) :

    Though a sceptic based on the fact sceince is not absolute, i never actually thought there was a grand conspiracy. I am really wondering about it now.

    I was amazed at how few were fairly obviously incriminated. All down to who you know! ;-)

    Jerry (09:58:49) :

    And I went to Penn State too, dammit!

    But not the State Pen I assume. ;-)

    DaveE.

  61. This is starting to develop the elements of the “prisoners dilemma.” If one defects by testifying against the other, while the other remains silent, the defector gets off scott free and the other takes the full rap. If both remain defensive however, they will both be implicated on minor charges. Finally, if each betrays the other, they will both be implicated but to a lesser degree that in the first case.

    In the classic form of this game, cooperating is strictly dominated by defection so that the only possible equilibrium for is for each player to defect. This is because no matter what the other player does each player will always gain the greatest payoff by defecting.

    The form of the game actually playing out, is slightly different, since each player can actually see the actions of the other. Jones can see what appears to be a defection by Mann. This would seem to make defecting a more probable play by Jones. The other pecularity is that this is a multi multi player game, and none of the other players have yet shown their hand. One prediction is that the more players who start to show defection behaviour, the more the probability that the others will defect.

    We shall see.

  62. A couple of problems with scapegoats:
    1) They know too much
    2) They have no incentive to keep their mouths shut

    The only way for corrupt science to save their corrupt data is huge golden parachutes for those most closely tied to this most recent revelation. They will have to be paid off or shut up some other way or the book millions will start rolling in and CAGW will be a distant memory. I think the handwriting is on the wall for CAGW.

  63. In one exchange, Jones tells Penn State’s Michael Mann: “If they ever hear there’s a Freedom of Information Act in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” He even asks Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about an IPCC assessment report: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: (the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report)?”

    investor.com

    Mann is in denial. Where was Mann in writing discouraging the Mannipulation of data, software and publications?

  64. I’d love to know what I’ve done to deserve to be sent straight to the spam bin.

    I’m on a static IP so unless anything with this nick that does not come from that IP is false.

    DaveE.

  65. Let me get this straight…

    Mann is criticizing Jones??!

    That’s like Robin “the boy wonder” tossing Batman under the bus.
    Doc

  66. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say he threw Jones under the bus.
    But in the interview Mann did show again what a fraud and a liar he is.
    My dad used to say: put a bunch of crooks in a room, and it’s just a matter of time before they starting screwing each other.

  67. Excellent points boballab (10:58:27).

    The aftermath of the Climategate Email Release is beginning to stir as much anxiety as the Release itself – no easy feat. This could take on a pinball metaphor. How many points per Alarmist?

    And as Horner’s FOI of GISS developes add more digits to the display.

  68. 2 minutes ago, Rush made a simple observation about Jones and the CRU.

    “They got caught”

    It is simple. Mann is a member of the gang green. Mann got caught and is passing the blame. I don’t care what Mann says about his intellect, research, the conspiracy or anything else. He got caught.

  69. Dagfinn (11:55:19) :

    Climategate aka the Mann-hole. ;-)

    So Mann’s excuse is labeled:

    Mann-hole cover.

    The achronym is CYA.

  70. This is a statement from Nature Re Jones et al…here is the staement

    Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

  71. AJStrata has it right… Mann ‘contacted Gene about this ASAP’. It will be minor to prove he forwarded, or re-emailed this request to Gene. Also minor to prove whether or not he deleted email locally that day (even though it is backed up, the local deletion would be recorded).

    That may hold off a newspaper for a week or two, but it will only get you in more trouble in any kind of serious review (eg. a court). Gene may want to choose his words carefully too.

  72. Well the fact is the warming can’t be faked. No one has except the authors of these posts. There is no decline to hide. The trend holds regardless of tossing a sub dataset.

  73. The prisoner’s dilemma of game theory in action. I dare say the Nash equilibrium ends with all concerned out on the street corner with the cardboard sign saying “Sober and homeless”.

  74. AJStrata (09:51:34) :

    I guess Mann forgot about this

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

    Hi Phil,

    laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
    have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
    have been true.
    ———————————-

    I’d seen that email before but I hadn’t noticed his interesting choice of words – he says “discovered THE problem”, not “discovered A problem”. Given the context, it’s a curious way to phrase an outsider’s claim about your own work.

  75. This brings to mind “the rats deserting the sinking ship”.

    When they start throwing each other under the bus, IT IS ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING!

  76. Well the head of PSU just got notice that the state legislature is going to be watching and they better not be whitewhasing Mann, with the implied threat of getting the money cutoff.

  77. Before this is over, the FBI will be drawn in. Think of the billions in grants that were bilked, the carbon credits and ethanol investors that were scammed. Makes Madoff look like chump change.

  78. MikeH (12:16:48) :

    he says “discovered THE problem”, not “discovered A problem”. Given the context, it’s a curious way to phrase an outsider’s claim

    I too read that as an admission of wrongdoing & commented to that effect at the time.

    DaveE.

  79. mikey (09:55:26) :

    Let the the back-stabbing begin!

    I have a faint hope that one or two of Mann’s or Jones’s colleagues will break rank, and start singing if they think the proverbial poo is going to hit the fan.

    Though a sceptic based on the fact sceince is not absolute, i never actually thought there was a grand conspiracy. I am really wondering about it now.

    What i find as alarming as the CRU emails is how much of the media is gaming the reporting in a totally unambiguous way. Its like they dont care how biased and dishonest they look any more.

    It makes me feel sick thinking our society is this morally and intellectually dishonest.

    ———————————————–

    You know mikey, you’re not the first person I’ve heard here lately mentioning the ‘c’ word: conspiracy. I.e. feeling uneasy that there appears to be one, and the media appear to be covering it up. Like the whole lot of them – the MSM – are reading from a script. Well, it does look that way I must admit.

    Goebbels said:” tell a big lie often enough and people will believe it”…

    Goebbels would be well, well impressed with our present day MSM.

    Totally compliant with their masters and masterfully competent in their art of mass-deception and brainwashing.

    May the pressure from the masses of us (thanks only to the alternative media and the increasing numbers of people reading it) weaken the multiplying cracks in the wall of deceit and lies so much that any binding international deal in Copenhagen can be averted.

    But, you know, they’re going do it anyway. They’ve been planning it for years (see green-agenda.com). This is a big move on their part. Really big. These guys don’t let things get in their way if they can help it. If things do get in their way they just delay their plans – this is how they work: incremental.

  80. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data, while he also said “I don’t believe that any of my colleagues have done that”.”

    It is the accidental(?) manipulations that most concern me. They are going to cause enormous burden for future auditors trying to re-reconcile the Earth orientation parameter record with the various ‘adjusted’ climate series.

    It is time that the climate scientists acknowledge that the challenge is interdisciplinary. A blindered (“I don’t see it because I’m not looking”) unidisciplinary approach can’t avoid looking foolish to those watching from other perspectives.

    I imagine some of the folks in geodesy having a jolly, hearty laugh if they know the details of what is going on …but they are probably hesitant to speak up because they know they’ll be stoned as ‘deniers’ for speaking truth, if the admins above them would even allow that – & to be honest, I don’t think they would in organizations with tight control, on grounds such as ‘national security’, since the top geodesy experts are involved in pinpoint military targeting etc. – i.e. the admins easily know persuasive tricks in such clear-cut cases where it’s a breeze to conflate issues.

  81. Given their hockey team in Toronto, you’d think they would be all over a chance to trumpet a local hero. There will be a good movie made about Steve M one day, where the people that wrote the emails will be the bit players.

  82. Mann is a foregone conclusion. Penn State has to fire him before he’s indicted by some Congressional inquiry – which trashes the school along with his ego.

    “If you’e studying counterfeiting, that could make you good at avoiding counterfeiting, or…” MMann

    Counterfeiting what Phil? It is tragic to see how this handful of arrogant, self-anointed shadow people are collapsing good organizations that have hitched themselves to climate change. Unfortunately some honest charitable causes will go down with the climate ship – only because they did not exercise due diligence to ferret out rats before boarding.

    Had the climate change campaign been willing to admit poor judgment even a short while ago – they would not have been brought so low.

    Pride – the door to self-destruction.

  83. debreuil (12:29:33) :

    Given their hockey team in Toronto, you’d think they would be all over a chance to trumpet a local hero. There will be a good movie made about Steve M one day, where the people that wrote the emails will be the bit players.

    One can only hope it’s soon enough that Steve can play himself. ;-)

    DaveE.

  84. What HAVE I done wrong?

    DaveE.

    [Your comments are being posted. Sometimes it may take a while. With the increasing traffic there are sometimes delays in approving comments. ~dbs, mod.]

  85. Snowmaneasy, that Nature piece is one of the most egregiously offensive pieces of apologia I have ever seen. If there was ever any doubt that that rag has lost all traces of scientific objectivity, this certainly cements it.

  86. Is there a meltdown over on RealClimate?

    I just read this in Pop Mechanics from Dr. Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences says the following at

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html

    “In tracking news reports and other commentary online, I have noticed vigorous exaggeration of the import of the stolen messages by global warming critics, and a relative silence on the part of the wider science community. But on the climate science commentary site RealClimate.org, I saw a statement from the moderators that “science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person.” Such statements—while true—could lead readers to conclude that the apparent misconduct revealed in the stolen e-mails is normal, and within the bounds of ordinary scientific discussion. I believe that would be a mistake. ”

    He also stated “though CRU has confirmed that most of the e-mails are genuine, some of them could have been forged or altered. Nevertheless, I think it is important for scientists to clearly state that if basic data were withheld, or if there was unprofessional tampering with the peer-review process, we do not condone these acts.”

  87. Is it too much to ask to put a “WUWT” in the destination screen on the bus?
    :-)

    With deepest regards and gratitude to the Source of the leaks, merry Christmas and the best of new years to you!

  88. After more careful reading of that letter from the State Senator to the head of PSU, it sounds more like can his butt or else to me.

    First the Senator mentions how organizations and individuals are writing in asking that the state withold funding until appropriate action is taken about Mann.

    Then in the next paragraph the Senator states:
    “I do not believe at this time that Penn State’s pending appropriation should be jeopardized…..”
    Notice he said at this time

    Then in the third paragraph he asks that the results be sent to him and depending on the results the State committee might form its on investigation, if warranted.

    Sounds like a get him out of here or else statement to me.

  89. When Steve McIntyre first revealed that he had found the file labelled “CENSORED” that contained Mann’s reconstruction without Bristlecone pines, showing no hockey stick, I couldn’t believe that anyone who was trying to get a desired result by fishing with the data would ever be dumb enough to label a file that way and leave it on a server. I figured “CENSORED” probably had some other meaning. Now I know……………………………….

  90. Snowmaneasy

    I agree. It’s shocking.
    I think we have to stop considering Nature as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.

  91. boballab (12:21:30) :

    ” Well the head of PSU just got notice that the state legislature is going to be watching and they better not be whitewhasing Mann, with the implied threat of getting the money cutoff. ”

    Yes, Mann is very vulnerable because of the State of Pennsylvania’s charter regardig Penn Sate U. If the state gov is watching the investigation closely, then it cannot be a easy whitewash.

    By chance, Mann is unlucky because doesn’t work for a private university. There is no such oversight over a private university.

    All you citizens of the great state of Pennsylvania please contact your state gov reps.

    Joh

  92. PhilW (10:11:46)

    I took you advice and sent the comment below:

    Obviously judging by your questions above the BBC assumes Climate Change is taken as a given and it is the fault of man. This, when the BBC Trust shouts from the rooftops about BBC impartiality.

    The BBC is happy to preach the religion of MMGW without any scientific proof, but has the hypocrisy to fly 35 staff to Copenhagen for 2 weeks.

    Once the BBC was a bastion of impartiality. Now it has become a shadow of it’s former self and too nervous to report at all on subjects such as Climategate.

    My guess is you won’t publish this comment on any of your outlets – but that is as expected. Your behavior is nothing but a disgrace to your millions of license payers. For your own good – make the changes to you editorial policy – now.

  93. Your comments are being posted. Sometimes it may take a while. With the increasing traffic there are sometimes delays in approving comments. ~dbs, mod.

    I appreciate that DB, it’s just that you’re having to retrieve them from the spam- bin & I can’t understand why they’re going there.

    DaveE.

  94. PAguy (10:10:23) :

    Fortunately for Dr. Mann, Penn State main campus has low carbon footprint buses powered by natural gas.

    Being thrown under such a bus would be an honor

    Natural gas buses are higher in carbon output than diesel Lot higher. Nancy Pelosi even said natural gas was not a fossil fuel. It is a fossil fuel and very inefficient for engines. Mercedes has clean diesel engines as is one of the BMW engines. They are common rail deisel and ultra high pressure injecters.

  95. I know this is nasty situation with blame to go aroundbut from several things I have read it sounds to me like Wigley is a true believer but I am not seeing him fudging the data but rather questioning those who are. Are his sins those of not blowing the whistle or is there some place he is obviously part of the fraud?

  96. I agree with Snowmaneasy that the Nature piece is worthy of its own thread. That mag needs some daylight scrutiny, too. They are co-conspirators.

  97. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…”

    Mind you, don’t ask him about Tortured, Abused, Adjusted, Ignored, Cherry-picked, CENSORED, Mutilated or Deleted…

  98. PhilW (10:11:46) :

    Found this side door round at the BBC. Might be worth giving the moderators stool a kick…. or two

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8375378.stm

    Good spot Phil.
    Posted:
    —————————————————————

    The game is up. Al Gore isn’t coming. Phil Jones is headed for prison along with Michael Mann, James Hanson, Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the Hockey Stick Team.

    The taxpayers of Europe want their hard earned money back.

    The clock is ticking on the whole charade.

  99. If we start with the studies of what works in climate forecasting, the Milankavitch cycles, and expand on what has turned out to be true about solar cycles according to Theodor Landscheidt, ( the only one to correctly forecast the long solar minimum we are passing through). The evidence points to the natural variability factors as being the effects of the rotation or the galaxy and the swirl imparted to the local area of the spiral arm we seem to reside in (Milankavich), and by the inertial dampening of the planets effects on the barycenter of the solar system, moves the sun’s center of mass around as it tries to stay magnetically and gravitationally centered in the swirling magnetic fields, plasma, and dust clouds, and other stars joining us in this dance to the celestial music as it were.

    (Landscheidt) Found the driving forces of the Inertial dampening of the system and defined it to the point of predictability, it only seems that that the next steps would be to analyze the effects of the interactions of the Inner planets, which have a rhythmic pattern to their orbital relationships, and their relations to the weather patterns they share. Most good discoveries come from the individuals who seek the truth with out consideration for the limited vision of the thundering herd mentality.

    With climategate we have seen the latest stampede, of hurried angst ridden, fear mongering, driving of the ignorant sheep of the world away from the truth and into the pens. By the politically minded “think they know what the rest of us need crowd,” that are controlling the funds, research orientation, and imposing their goals upon the process, to achieve profits as they see fit, to stay in power.

    I have quietly undertaken the study of the relationships between the interactions of the Sun’s magnetic fields borne on the solar wind, and it’s interactions with the Earth’s weather patterns to the point I have found the cyclic patterns of the shorter decadeal durations, that show up as the natural background variances in the climate RAW data sets. Starting with the history of research into planetary motions and the Lunar declination,(the Earth / Moon system’s response to the rotation of the magnetic poles of the sun. In order to find a natural analog to the patterns in the weather there were several things I had to consider.

    The results of the analog cyclic pattern I discovered repeat with in a complex pattern of Inner planet harmonics, and outer planet longer term interferences that come round to the 172 year pattern Landscheidt discovered, so this is just the shorter period set of variables, that further define the limits, of the natural variables needed to be considered, along side the CO2 hypothesis, as the longer term/period parents (Milankivich and Landscheidt cycles) of these driving forces are valid. It would be in error if they were not considered and calculated into the filtering of the swings in the climate data, for forecasting longer terms into the future.

    A sample of the cyclic pattern found in the meteorological database is presented as a composite of the past three cycles composited together and plotted onto maps for a 5 year period starting in 2008, and running to January of 2014, on a rough draft website I use to further define the shifts in the pattern from the past three to the current cycle, to continue learning about the details of the interactions.

    http://www.aerology.com

    The building of Stonehenge at the end of the last ice age, was done as the weather in the area was changing from tundra, to grasses and shrubs, in waves from the El nino effects at the time.

    They began a study of the relationship between the Solar and Lunar declinational movement timing, found the lunar 18.6 year Mn minimum/maximum declinational cycle, the 19 year Metonic cycle where the moon is at the same phase and maximum declination on the same date every 19 years, and the 6585 day Saris cycle of eclipses.

    From combining the annual seasonal effects of apparent solar declination, and the short term effects of the Lunar declinational movement. The Incas and Mayans understood repeating weather patterns well enough to build a thriving culture, that supported a much larger population, than the area currently barely supports in poverty.

    Then along came the Conquistadors, that were assumed to be the gods foretold in prophecy, who took over and killed off the high priests and the learned class (because the Catholic priests with them were convinced, they were idolaters and heretics.) so all were lost that understood how the “Pagan religion†was able to grow that much food with little problems, by the timing of celebrations and festivals that the people partook of, in a joyous and productive mood.

    The Mayan stone masons who were busy carving out the next stone block to carve another 300 years of calendar upon, were put to work mining gold to export back to Spain. So with the next stone block unfinished, and in the rough, still in the quarry the Mayan calendar comes to an end in 2012.

    Most of the population of the area was either killed in battles, or worked to death, while on cocaine to minimize food consumption, and mined gold for export by the false gods.

    At home in Europe the Spanish inquisition sought to wipe out the fund of knowledge, (that went underground) about the interactions of the Solar and Lunar declinational movements and other sidereal stellar influences on people, and things in the natural world. As the result of mass killings, and book burnings much knowledge, and data history was lost.

    Nicolas Copernicus, (19, February 1473 – 24 May 1543) and Nostradamus, (21 December, 1503 – 2 July 1566) Were around at about the same time and may have collaborated in person, or through a net work of underground friends. To give Nostradamus the idea to convert the data sets of past history sorted by geocentric astrology locations and positions, to a Heliocentric data base from which he drew his famous quatrains. There are many references to late night calculations, aside observations that may have given him his accuracy. Then along came Galileo Galilie , (15, February, 1564 – 8 January, 1642) with proof, that round moons circled round planets.

    With the advent of good fast cheap computers, I was able to look at data sets ( although with considerably less coverage due to centuries of suppression,) and sort for Planetary and Lunar influences, and found that the Lunar declinational component, of the orbital movements, of the Moon, was responsible for the driving, of the Rossby Wave patterns, in sync with the lunar declinational tidal forces at work in the atmosphere.

    How does this all work you ask? Well there is a magnetic field that surrounds the sun, and magnetic fields, that are invested in the body of the Galaxy. These large scale standing fields, interact to produce fluctuations in the strength of the fields felt upon the Earth as it moves in it’s orbit.

    The poles of the Earth are tilted to the axis of the solar system ~23 ½ degrees, giving us the changing seasons. The sun on the other hand is different it’s axis of rotation is vertical, but the magnet poles are tilted ~12 degrees, so as it rotates on an average of 27.325 day period, the polarity of the magnetic fields felt via the solar wind, shifts from the result of the orientation determined by the position of the rotating magnetic poles of the sun.

    The inner core of the moon has frozen, the outer core of the Earth is still molten, and a concentration of the magnetically permeable materials that make up the earth. These pulses of alternating North then South magnetic field shifts has been going on since before the Earth condensed into a planet and then was later struck by a Mars sized object (so the current theory goes), that splashed off most of the crust.

    Most returned to the Earth, some was lost into interplanetary space, and some condensed into the moon. Somewhere in the process the center of mass of the moon gravitated toward the surface that faces the Earth, before it froze, causing that denser side to always face the Earth.

    It is not the center of mass of the Earth that scribes the orbital path of the Earth about the sun but the center of mass of the composite Earth / moon barycenter that lies about 1,200 kilometers off of the center of mass of the Earth, always positioned between the center of the earth and the center of the Moon. So as the Moon rotates around the earth to create the lunar light phases, the center of mass of the earth goes from inside to out side, around the common barycenter. As the Moon moves North / South in it’s declination, the center of mass of the earth goes the opposite direction to counter balance, around their common barycenter that scribes the smooth ellipse of the orbit around the sun. So really the Earth makes 13 loops like a strung out spring every year.

    The magnetic impulses in the solar wind has driven the Moon / Earth into the declinational dance that creates the tides in phase in the atmosphere, because of the pendulum type movement the Moon hangs at the extremes of declination almost three days with in a couple of degrees then makes a fast sweep across the equator at up to 7 to 9 degrees per day. At these culminations of declination movement the polarity of the solar wind peaks and reverses, causing a surge in the reversal of the ion flux generated as a result. Because of the combination of both peak of Meridian flow surge in the atmosphere, and reversal of ion charge gradient globally occurs at the same time like clock work most severe weather occurs at these times.

    Because of the semi boundary conditions caused by mountain ranges, the Rockies, Andes, Urals, Alps, Himalayas, that resulted in topographical forcing into a four fold pattern of types of Jet stream patterns, I had to use not a 27.325 day period but a 109.3 day period to synchronize the lunar declinational patterns into the data to get clearer repeatability than the same data set filtered by Lunar phase alone.

    There is a pattern of 6554 days where in the inner planets, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, make an even number of orbital revolutions, and return to almost the same relative position to the star field.

    By adding 4 days to this period I get 6558 days the time it takes the Moon to have 240 declinational cycles of 27.325 days, so that by using 6558 days as a synchronization period I get the lunar Declination angle, lunar phase, perigee / apogee cycle, and the relative positions of the inner planets to align from the past three (6558 day) cycles well enough that the average of the temperatures, and the totals of the precipitations give a picture of the repeating pattern, from the last three to forecast the next almost 18 year long string of weather related events, with a better accuracy than the forecast available for three to five days from NOW from conventional NWS / NOAA sources.

    So by looking at the periods of declinational movement and the four fold pattern of Rossby wave propagation, while maintaining the inner planet synchronization. I get all of these influences in sync to look almost the same, as the current conditions, even to periods of hail, and tornado production.

    When the outer planets are added into the mix, they are out of phase in regard to the inner planet / Lunar patterns, and their influences are not in Sync with these background patterns. There are lines of magnetic force that connect each planet to the sun, and these revolve around with the planets naturally.

    As the Earth’s orbit takes it between these outer planets and the sun (at Synodic conjunctions), the increase in magnetic fields carried via the solar wind, (to effect this outer planet coupling) is felt upon the Earth’s magnetosphere, and results in a temporary increase in the pole to equator charge gradient then a discharge back to ambient levels (about a two week long up then down cycle time), how this interferes or combines with the “usual lunar / inner planet patterns†is determined by whether it is in, or out of phase with the background patterns.

    During normal charge cycles more moisture is driven into the atmosphere carrying positive Ions, along the ITCZ, and in discharge cycle phases waves of free electrons, and negative ions are sent down from the poles into the mid-latitudes. Charge cycles inhibit precipitation amounts and discharge cycles produce increased precipitation amounts along existing frontal boundaries, due to changes in residual ion charge differences between the air masses.

    There is a seasonal increase in magnetic fields coupled from the center of out galaxy to the sun that peaks in mid June (summer solstice), and then decreases till winter solstice. As the magnetic charging cycle associated with this build up in Northern hemisphere Spring, it brings on a bias for surges of positive ionized air masses, that produces surges of tornadoes in phase with the lunar declinational culminations, and other severe weather, will also be enhanced by Synod conjunctions with outer planets, by the same increases of positively charged ions. The closer the timing of the conjunction to a peak lunar culmination the sharper the spike of production, like cracking a whip.

    During discharge phases from summer solstice through fall in general, tropical storms manifest as large scale discharge patterns to ring the moisture, heat, and excess ions out of the tropical air masses. Outer planets conjunctions at these times help to build moisture reserves in the atmosphere, during their ion charge contribution, and enhance storms to category 4 and 5 levels when in phase with their discharge phase influences. So to say that the planets have no real influence on the world in general, is the same as to totally disregard how much the weather, effects how people live and survive.

    I think that the influences felt at the surface, are just changes in the back ground stimuli, and not strongly controlling enough to lose free will, when we chose to interact with the total spectrum of stimuli that surrounds us at any particular moment. The 18+ year long repeating pattern is long enough that the other conditions surrounding a person have changed, via plant growth, soil changes, age, or location on the surface of the earth, since the last cycle.

    On the ground, all plants that have roots in the soil share soil ions and nutrients, via microbial sharing, fungal predation, and companion plants that support each other. The organic matter from past growth that gives up valuable nutrients as it decays, and adds texture to the soil for better aeration and moisture penetration, form a mat of interacting processes, that breath life into the environment.

  100. Wondering Aloud (13:16:38) :

    “…from several things I have read it sounds to me like Wigley is a true believer but I am not seeing him fudging the data but rather questioning those who are.”

    WA, have you seen this Wigley email to Jones? click

  101. David L. Hagen (12:38:10) :

    Good question, David. Far as I know, there has been nothing other than acquiescence by silence to outright agreement. The time for Mann to distance himself from what was going on for a very long time was … a very long time ago.
    If he was uncomfortable or had objections, there would have been that trail to follow.
    What I am seeing is a lot of inner circle CYA Johnny-come-lately, and that has to be what top officials are seeing at the institutions that are taking a beating.

  102. Richard Lawson (13:06:38)

    For over 3 years I have been writing to Mark Thompson (BBC Director General) and Sir Michael Lyons (Chairman, BBC Trust) about the organisation’s absolute bias towards the ‘consensus’ on climate change.

    All I have received for my troubles is sophistry and obfuscation. This is probably explained because:

    A BBC report; “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel-Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century”, commissioned jointly by the BBC Trust and Board of Management and published in June 2007 concluded;

    ‘There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and that it is at least predominantly man-made… the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’

    So there you have it, damned by their own hand…yet STILL they refuse to admit it! And that is why they have kept quiet about Climategate.

    Anyone interested in taking the same road as me should write to:

    Mark Thompson Esq
    Director General
    BBC Broadcasting House
    Portland Place
    London
    W1A 1AA

    Mark your envelope: Strictly Private & Confidential

    If his desk gets deluged with letters from irate licence-fee payers, he will have to recognise he has a problem.

    It would also be helpful to get your MP involved.

    Happy stirring!

  103. “Prof Mann then argued however that there was ‘absolutely no evidence’ that he too had manipulated data…”

    I believe Mann stood the proxy world on its head with his recent papers.

  104. With a friend like Michael Mann, who needs enemies? Seriously, what an SOB to throw Jones under the bus. If he was a Real Man, he would stand beside Jones and take his lumps.

  105. More emails to come????

    From:
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: UEA Investigation
    Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:51:24 -0600
    Cc: Benjamin Santer , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen

    YOU SAID WHAT????

    From: Michael Mann
    To:
    Subject: Re: UEA Investigation
    Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:31:24 -0600
    Cc: Benjamin Santer , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen

    Um… Phil take as much time off as you want and to better relax stay away
    from the newspapers and news web sites for a while.

    In particular the Telegraph.

    From:
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: UEA Investigation
    Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:01:24 -0600
    Cc: Benjamin Santer , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen

    Michael et al,

    I am doing well thanks for asking. Just to let you all know I was
    planning on taking in the sights in Denmark before the AGU meeting
    so my “stepping aside” is just something we told the press.

    Does anyone think I would REALLY step aside after all the hard work
    and money I made for the UEA.

    Michael, regarding Sir Muir Russell I think you Americans have a phrase:
    “the fix is in”? He’s an old cribbage friend who can be counted on so
    now worries over here.

    Just make sure you down play my earlier request to delete all AR4 emails
    and stick with the line that my email was “taken out of context”.

  106. Daryl M (13:49:56) :

    “With a friend like Michael Mann, who needs enemies? Seriously, what an SOB to throw Jones under the bus. If he was a Real Man, he would stand beside Jones and take his lumps.”

    Actually hugely risky; I’m sure Jones knows where the bodies are buried and he is quite capable of taking Mann (and the rest) down with him.

  107. Manns reputation is declining every time he opens his mouth. Perhaps he may find a way to hide the decline.

  108. Link to the original Radio 4 interview with Michael Mann:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p1mvf#synopsis

    Starts 18.40 mins into the show.
    Title:”The row intensifies over leaked emails on climate change.”

    If you listen right though there is woven discussion about state science and its relationship with the public that shows just how difficult it is to polarise this debate between goodies and badies, left/right etc. It finishes with David Nutt, sacked for saying Extasy is a Class A drug, saying this is a fact just as global warming is a fact – and because the scientific evidence points to this fact then there should be no disputing it, no debate, finished.

  109. A crucial mail is, I think, this one: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=424&filename=1092418712.txt

    The background appears to be that Jones has received a paper to review by RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels called “A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of Surface Air Temperature Trends”, submitted to International Journal of Climatology. The paper is attached to an email from Andrew Comrie which Jones forwards to Mann, with a brief comment which starts “The paper!”.

    In http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=424&filename=1092418712.txt, Mann is acknowledging receipt of Jones’ email.

    Circulating a manuscript received for review without the consent of the editor and the authors of the manuscript is a completely unacceptable action. Mann could have said: “Err, Phil, thanks a bunch for the message. It is, however, foolish and incorrect to circulate a manuscript which you have received for review except among the editorial board of the journal in question. I will delete the copy you sent me, and please don’t do this again”.

    Rather than remind Jones of basic ethics, Mann indicates that he would like to “forward this to the chair of our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the case against MM [McKitrick and Michaels]?”. This shows that Mann received the manuscript gladly, and contemplated using possession of it to grind a very definite axe, and taking care that his unauthorized possession of it should be kept secret.

    Unless it is a fake, the contents of this email alone are sufficient to ensure neither of them ever reviews for an academic journal again, occupies an editorial position or sits on a grant-awarding panel. Not a nice position for an academic. If you’re old enough, you can retire. If not, …

  110. ““Prof Mann then argued however that there was “absolutely no evidence” that he too had manipulated data…””

    Right. This is the same “Meltdown” Mann who just days ago published a paper with the lake-sediment data turned upside-down, right? The same guy who, scant months ago, published a paper claiming East Antarctic warming which was based entirely on “interpolated” (i.e. made-up) temp readings? The same guy who created the statistical AlGorHythm: a routine which will take any set of inputs and generate a hockey-stick?

    Oh, yeah. Never manipulated anything. And OJ is still looking for the real killers.

  111. There was a young man from east Anglia,
    Who put his data through the upside down Manngler,
    He exclaimed with surprise
    “That’s a fall not a rise!
    We must make the code even tanglier.”

    [REPLY - Sorry, we're out of extra copies of Bold Fresh. ~ Evan]

  112. A very bad Mann from Penn State
    Made his colleagues exceedingly irate
    He said “It’s them and not me
    It’s plain, can’t you see!”
    And abandoned them all to their fate.

  113. BBC’s Richard Black is presenting us with a CO2 hockey stick, the last trend in AGW propaganda. Visitors will easily see it as a temperature graph (“Earth’s Climate history”). The choice of the last 800k yrs hides periods of greater concentrations.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm

    Credits go to…

    “Temperature for the last 1,500 years is taken from Mann, M.E., Zhang, Z., Hughes, M.K., Bradley, R.S., Miller, S.K., Rutherford, S., Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations over the Past Two Millennia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 105, 13252-13257, 2008.
    For the final time period covered, the temperature data is sourced to the Met Office Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”

  114. [REPLY - Sorry, we're out of extra copies of Bold Fresh. ~ Evan]

    You’ll have to explain that one Evan, this Brit is not up to speed.

  115. Re: he says “discovered THE problem”, not “discovered A problem”. Given the context, it’s a curious way to phrase an outsider’s claim

    Unless of course THE problem was discovered by someone else (not McIntyre.) It also implies that they view McIntyre as a publicity hound with connections at WSJ. Honestly, it’s not that hard to read that from this email.

    Re: sounds good Phil, I agree on the forecast. I think its at least
    ‘plausible’ ;)”

    I think this was a wink, wink, nudge, nudge inside joke between two colleagues. If every time you put a forecast out, and you knew that certain people were going to say it was not even in the realm of possibility (whether it is or not) this type of joke would develop with a colleague that holds the same view point as you. Just because they don’t work together on a daily basis, doesn’t mean this type of relationship could not form.

    I am not a Mann/Jones/etc… apologist. I don’t believe in CAGW, and I’m not really all that sold on AGW either. All I would ask is who here has not written an email that would look damning to people that are not privy to the rest of the conversation or inside jokes between colleagues? I know for a fact that I am guilty of this from time to time (I’m a very sarcastic person.) I guess what I’m saying is that the remarks may be about what others are going to say and their motivations rather that commenting on real actions or malfeasance on their part.

  116. By way of a reminder: Who’s “nature trick” was it to “hide the decline”?

    “Taken out of context:” After reading the emails, the context is implicit. Its a series of propositions clearly bound to its context.

  117. matt (15:17:32)

    Oh… Its a frame up to be sure. Commit the misdeed, inspire others to follow, then blame one’s followers as culprits when it goes public.

  118. tallbloke (15:00:44)

    Oh… Its a frame up to be sure. Commit the misdeed, inspire others to follow, then blame one’s followers as culprits when it goes public.

  119. There once was two men from Nantucket
    Who put all their data in a bucket
    Said one “it was him”
    the other just grinned
    “When they come looking ’round we’ll just chuck it”

    It’s all about the popcorn.

  120. From: Ben Santer <sant…@llnl.gov
    Date: Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:58 PM
    Subject: Open letter to the climate science community

    Dear colleagues and friends,

    I am sure that by now, all of you are aware of the hacking incident which
    recently took place at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research
    Unit (CRU). This was a criminal act. Over 3,000 emails and documents were
    stolen. The identity of the hacker or hackers is still unknown.

    The emails represented private correspondence between CRU scientists and
    scientists at climate research centers around the world. Dozens of the
    stolen emails are from over a decade of my own personal correspondence with
    Professor Phil Jones, the Director of CRU.

    I obtained my Ph.D. at the Climatic Research Unit. I went to CRU in 1983
    because it was – and remains – one of the world's premier institutions for
    studying the nature and causes of climate change. During the course of my
    Ph.D., I was privileged to work together with exceptional scientists – with
    people like Tom Wigley, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and Sarah Raper.

    After completing my Ph.D. at CRU in 1987, I devoted much of my scientific
    career to what is now called "climate fingerprinting", which seeks to
    understand the causes of recent climate change. At its core, fingerprinting
    is a form of what people now call "data mining" – an attempt to extract
    information and meaning from very large, complex climate datasets. The
    emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit are now being subjected to a
    very different form of "data mining". This mining is taking place in the
    blogosphere, in the editorial pages of various newspapers, and in radio and
    television programs. This form of mining has little to do with extracting
    meaning from personal email correspondence on complex scientific issues.
    This form of mining seeks to find dirt – to skew true meaning, to distort,
    to misrepresent, to take out of context. It seeks to destroy the reputations
    of exceptional scientists – scientists like Professor Phil Jones.

    I have known Phil for over 25 years. He is the antithesis of the secretive,
    "data destroying" character being portrayed to the outside world by the
    miners of dirt and disinformation. Phil Jones and Tom Wigley (the second
    Director of the Climatic Research Unit) devoted significant portions of
    their scientific careers to the construction of the land component of the
    so-called "HadCRUT" dataset of land and ocean surface temperatures. The U.K.
    Meteorological Office Hadley Centre (MOHC) took the lead in developing the
    ocean surface temperature component of HadCRUT.

    The CRU and Hadley Centre efforts to construct the HadCRUT dataset have been
    open and transparent, and are documented in dozens of peer-reviewed
    scientific papers. This work has been tremendously influential. In my
    personal opinion, it is some of the most important scientific research ever
    published. It has provided hard scientific evidence for the warming of our
    planet over the past 150 years.

    Phil, Tom, and their CRU and MOHC colleagues conducted this research in a
    very open and transparent manner. Like good scientists, they examined the
    sensitivity of their results to many different subjective choices made
    during the construction of the HadCRUT dataset. These choices relate to such
    issues as how to account for changes over time in the type of thermometer
    used to make temperature measurements, the thermometer location, and the
    immediate physical surroundings of the thermometer. They found that, no
    matter what choices they made in dataset construction, their bottom-line
    finding – that the surface of our planet is warming – was rock solid. This
    finding was supported by many other independent lines of evidence, such as
    the retreat of snow and sea-ice cover, the widespread melting and retreat of
    glaciers, the rise in sea-level, and the increase in the amount of water
    vapor in the atmosphere. All of these independent observations are
    physically consistent with a warming planet.

    Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The claim that our Earth
    had warmed markedly during the 20th century was extraordinary, and was
    subjected to extraordinary scrutiny. Groups at the National Climatic Data
    Center in North Carolina (NCDC) and at the Goddard Institute for Space
    Studies in New York (GISS) independently attempted to reproduce the results
    of the Climatic Research Unit and the U.K. Meteorological Office Hadley
    Centre. While the NCDC and GISS groups largely relied on the same primary
    temperature measurements that had been used in the development of the
    HadCRUT dataset, they made very different choices in the treatment of the
    raw measurements. Although there were differences in the details of the
    three groups' results, the NCDC and GISS analyses broadly confirmed the
    "warming Earth" findings of the CRU and MOHC scientists.

    Other extraordinary claims – such as a claim by scientists at the University
    of Alabama that Earth's lower atmosphere cooled since 1979, and that such
    cooling contradicts "warming Earth" findings – have not withstood rigorous
    scientific examination.

    In summary, Phil Jones and his colleagues have done a tremendous service to
    the scientific community – and to the planet – by making surface temperature
    datasets publicly available for scientific research. These datasets have
    facilitated climate research around the world, and have led to the
    publication of literally hundreds of important scientific papers.

    Phil Jones is one of the gentlemen of our field. He has given decades of his
    life not only to cutting-edge scientific research on the nature and causes
    of climate change, but also to a variety of difficult and time-consuming
    community service activities – such as his dedicated (and repeated) service
    as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Since the theft of the CRU emails and their public dissemination, Phil has
    been subjected to the vilest personal attacks. These attacks are without
    justification. They are deeply disturbing. They should be of concern to all
    of you. We are now faced with powerful "forces of unreason" – forces that
    (at least to date) have been unsuccessful in challenging scientific findings
    of a warming Earth, and a "discernible human influence" on global climate.
    These forces of unreason are now shifting the focus of their attention to
    the scientists themselves. They seek to discredit, to skew the truth, to
    misrepresent. They seek to destroy scientific careers rather than to improve
    our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change.

    Yesterday, Phil temporarily stepped down as Director of the Climatic
    Research Unit. Yesterday was a very sad day for climate science. When the
    forces of unreason win, and force exceptional scientists like Professor Phil
    Jones to leave their positions, we all lose. Climate science loses. Our
    community loses. The world loses.

    Now, more than at any other time in human history, we need sound scientific
    information on the nature and causes of climate change. Phil Jones and his
    colleagues at CRU have helped to provide such information. I hope that all
    of you will join me in thanking Phil for everything he has done – and will
    do in the future – for our scientific community. He and his CRU colleagues
    deserve great credit.

    With best regards,

    Ben Santer
    —————————————————————————­-
    Benjamin D. Santer
    Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
    Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
    Tel: (925) 422-3840
    FAX: (925) 422-7675
    email: sant…@llnl.gov

  121. Of course, when Michael Mann received that email, he immediately replied and expressed his concern to Jones.
    Since there appear to be no emails to that effect in the released files, like pretty well everyone else here, I’d suggest that perhaps he would like to release some of his own copies to prove his statements?
    Anything at all that would substantiate his claims?

    I wonder why this idea hasn’t occurred to the MSM interviewers?
    Oh, I forgot, he gave his interview to tame interviewers.

  122. From Ben Santer’s very first paragraph above:

    I am sure that by now, all of you are aware of the hacking incident which recently took place at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). This was a criminal act. Over 3,000 emails and documents were stolen. The identity of the hacker or hackers is still unknown.

    Santer is presuming facts that are nowhere in evidence.

    Who is this putative “hacker”? Anyone making such a definitive statement either knows the identity of said hacker, or is engaging in classic misdirection, rather than admitting that the folks receiving multi-million grants and lavish expense accounts, traveling the world, etc., were mostly winging it, if not engaging in outright scientific misconduct. Yeah, let’s discuss this mysterious hacker instead of the real crime.

    Common sense tells us that the emails and code were leaked by an insider, not a hacker. But then Santer is right in the middle of it, so he’s got to spin his own tale.

    The rest of his letter is just a lot of projection, whining about the “vilest personal attacks”, etc. Has he not read all the emails by the CRU clique, attacking anyone who questioned the AGW Party line?

  123. Phil Clarke (16:50:33) :

    I’d agree that Phil Jones might be a gentleman, though from this perspective:

    “between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he?d been awarded in the 1990s.

    Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?”

    one ought to say that manners aside, this does seem to be a protection racket of a sort. Its easy to imagine the background – produce th eresults that the conclusion asks for, apply the semblence of scientific method that only a few are privy to, hide it from everyone else, and present it to the public as a fait accompli. This is the voice of unreason, or that of self interest/advocacy and the sort of bias that we’re pointing out here.

    So step back and imagine if this had happeend in a field of expertise which required criically accurate and transparent science and data, such as medical, biology, or cancer research:

    No one would have blackballed the questioning of techniques employed by researchers. In fact, they constantly question each other for veracity, and depend on the right results, as far as scientific limitations permit – breakthroughs aren’t expunged that throw new light on a proposition.

    In “climatology” the opposite of this process is occurring, partly through its abstract and unaccountable nature, which I put down to rhetoric, and rhetoric isn’t sound science.

    So my proposition is: If it was decided that illness was best dealt with by charging illness taxes, you’d be outraged: Yet this is the proposition that is being demanded by our peers regarding what they say is a more dire *future* problem than anything we’ve faced before. In that context, don’t be too splenetic if people express their doubts.

  124. Ok this is just a *bit* rich of MANN:

    One of the scientists to whom the emails were addressed, Professor Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University has moved to distance himself from some of the comments in the emails that suggest scientists did not want the IPCC, the UN body charged with monitoring climate change, to consider studies that challenged the view global warming was genuine and man-made.

    Just take a look at this 22.Sep.99 e-mail from MANN to JONES, BRIFFA and FOLLAND [938018124.txt]:

    So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate (through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere patterns with Phil’s more extratropical series) that the major discrepancies between Phil’s and our series can be explained in terms of spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  125. I dout that dirt is being looked for. The only controversial *dirt* to be garnered from the emails seems to be Santer’s own desire to beat the crap” out of someone. Thats about the only slinging I can garner from the correspondences.

  126. When one bad guy is painted with a broad brush, those close to the picture are concerned with over-spray. So more often than not, the nearby folks try to take the high road, so as not to get paint on themselves too. Pass the popcorn.

  127. Every Mann for himself!!

    My interpretation – Mann trying to get in front of the PSU investigation, possibly being guided by the investigators to issue statements they can use to mitigate their findings. They reveal a perceived weak position.

    Easterling and Spanier are certainly under tremendous pressure from the alumni, including me. Let’s see the data, Graham.

  128. “…..yes Senator Boxer, you are accurate in your assertion, Mr. Jones did go off the reservation….but gobal warming science is sound…..”

  129. Climategate Forecast…
    “• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
    Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
    AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

    Mann threw Mann under the bus too – peer review.

  130. Mann is probably thinking that hell will freeze over before they prove anything, but it’s ironic that he’s prepared for this eventuality because he’ll have his hockey stick when hell becomes an ice rink.

  131. Of course we don’t have Mann’s email store, but I have to admit from what I’ve seen he comes off better than most of them in being upfront with his colleagues about issues he wishes to raise, and not nearly as consistently catty in his remarks about other colleagues not on the particular chain he was responding to.

    That doesn’t make his science any better (or worse), of course.

  132. Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.

    So … we can expect Prof Mann to release his archive of emails about Climate research over the last 10 years sometime soon, for outsiders to peruse?

  133. Contact the district attorney in the Penn State U.S. Attorney’s district and ask him or her to convene a grand jury to investigate the matter. Best if you can cite relevant federal statutes.

  134. I’m an aerospace Technical Fellow of Modeling, Simulation and Analysis (MS&A), I’m appalled at the low standards in climatology, and how their shoddy work is–as the WSJ noted–adversely impacting the reputation of all scientists in all fields.

    Mann said in the quote that he did not, could not conscience the deletion of emails and data. Yet, as others above posted, the his email response to Jones’ request to pass along his request to delete, Mann made no objection, and seemed to comply, especially w.r.t. passing along the request to delete to colleagues.

    If PSU and UEA are allowed to run their own “independent” investigation, then the next time there is a big USA DoD scandal, I expect Boeing and LockMart to be allowed to “independently” investigate themselves, pronounce their innocence, and everyone accept it. Forget about the $600 toilet seats. Forget about the $450 hammers. “We did an in-depth investigation, and Dr Jones and Dr Mann didn’t really do anything wrong, but they are very sorry for being the cause of the turmoil, so let’s all just forget about it all, and go back to giving us $100,000,000 grants, and stop questioning GW and AGW.”

    Through channels I offered Sen Inhofe my services as an expert practitioner of data collection, cleaning, mining, simulation and analysis. (If Sen Boxer were interested in more than catching the “hacker” I would offer my services to her side too,) I doubt he will call, but I stand ready to serve.

    A blue-ribbonn panel of OUTSIDE experts needs to disassemble the data and code, and determine if accepted standard practices and procedures were followed by these climatologists.

    The credibility of PSU and UES are too tarnished for them to investigate anything worse than a plagiarism claim. These data and studies are the basis for Cap-and-Trade styled changes to the world economy, which is already in shambles. Unless OUTSIDE auditors are used, the public will lose respect for science, and what will happen then? Will mob superstition replace science?

    Newt Love (my real name)
    newtlove.com

  135. Ken this movement wasn’t born in this last generation, it is multi generational.
    It has roots all the way back in the 1960’s when the scientist that basically put Scripps Oceanographic institute on the map postited the modern version of AGW (see John Colmans piece on ICE CAP). This scientist then moved from Scripps were he met a grad student by the name of Al Gore, as shown in his book Earth in the Balance. Of course this scientist in 1991 announced that he was wrong on AGW but by that time the AGW Bus was picking up steam with the Goracle at the wheel so Al threw him under that Bus.

    At the same time this scientist made his hypthothesis the modern day Enviro movement started and as been proven by their own words (Yes I mean you Dr. Holdren) they had an agenda to enforce there own views on the world. Howerver back then the Temps were falling so AGW was still in its infancy so they went with AGC. The next Ice Age was comming, we were all going to die and it was man’s fault, yada, yada, yada. I remember the first movie I went to (I was 5 at the time) and they had this short clip before the Diseny Film about how, ironies of ironies, Exxon was helping the Enviro movement stop AGC. Yep your eyes ain’t misleading you The Greens and Exxon in bed! As the years went strolling along and we had another winter worse then the next until it all culminated in the 1977 Blizzard that basically shut down the entire Northeast for a week. After that even was Spock was on the AGC crowd as his ManBearPig series In Search of shows (You can still see the episode on the next Ice Age on You Tube, complete with a temp station on a remote island on the artic circle and an Alarmist scientist). Time famously had articles on this in 1975. Basically just take everything you have heard about AGW and change the W for a C, substitute Cold for Hot so forth and you will get an accurate picture.

    Then a funny thing happened on the way to an Icy grave for mankind, The planet started warming up. Darn planet forgot to read Time and watch ManBearPig TV shows. Now the Enviros hadn’t really discovered AGW yet but they did discover the Ozone layer which CFC’s were destroying and if we didn’t do something right now in 10 years we would all fry to death in UV rays. Again the band tuned up and marched off and pass laws that really had no effect on the Ozone hole, but did help clear the smog away and we all didn’t fry in 10 years. Of course just when that was dying is when they found the motherlode of AGW and the Goracle. The rest is history.

  136. All these bus and sledge accidents point to the clue to the ‘hack’. Maybe the password was ‘Rosebud’.

  137. …………….but Mann forwarded Jones’s email to another colleague.

    If Mann felt uneasy about deleting emails he should have replied to Jones that wasn’t going to comply and not forward it to another colleague.

    Mann like Jones was spreading the message – “delete the emails”.

  138. Finding the truth, and using it are my agenda:
    Asking questions, and finding answers to compare, to further evaluate, gives us a gathering of knowledge, to evaluate the hypothesis skeptically, while figuring out better questions, to ask for the next set of trials.

    Diversity of thought in additional areas of knowledge, gives a more rounded vision, allowing the formation of more complex answers, and resultant questions, that can present data in a format, that is visual enough that it shows the balancing of several forces at work as they really do.

    From a viewpoint of how the assemblage of parts seamlessly fits together, you only have to do is watch the (short but seemingly) endless stream of satellite photos animated and synchronized by 27′.32 days periods, to see the repeating cycles.

    To set up five tiled windows, in the first show day one- thru27 sequentially, the as they continue on in the same stream, the cycle of the first 27 days continues anew in window #2, synchronized by Lunar declination to #1. Till they spill over into window #3 stepping in phase with the other two, #4 the same idea gives you the four basic patterns of the Rossby wave 109.3 day cycle, of global circulation, that then repeat but seasonally shifted.

    In window #5 then would be the first repeat of window #1 in the same phase of the same pattern, and should look a lot like window #1. As the progression through the total series , proceeds, 6558 days into the five stacks a 6th window opens and the original day #1 in window #1 opens as #1 in window #6. As the series progresses on, real data can be viewed, in the real interactions going on.

    This would give you a look into the cyclic pattern that develops from the repetitive interaction of the inner planets and Lunar declination, phase, perigee/ apogee cycles.
    By adding a sliding ball, vertically moving up and down a +-30 degree scale bar, on the side of each tile space, that shows the plot of the current Lunar declination for the time of each frame.

    By adding another slide bar of +-30 degrees at the top, of each tile you could view each outer planet as we pass them, as color coded discs labeled, J, S,U, N, shifting from left to right as we pass them. this progression of the outer planets can then be seen in the additional surges in ion flux as they go by.

    Once the amount of additional angular momentum, and the process of it’s coming and goings clearly seen, it can then be measured, it’s effects calculated, and incorporated into the climate models, giving us a much better picture, of all of the parts of the puzzle.

    All of the necessary data is in the archives, and free to use to those that have the where with all, to assemble the real truth, be it inconvenient or not.

    For application in Quake sightings, and subsequent formulating hypothesis and developing forecast parameters, you could substitute, or add (if your video resolutions is good enough), intensity quantified dots on the surface of occurring quakes (play with fade out time to see time shifts etc.) and an open circle showing the moving location of the earth/moon center line, to apply this information about the magnetic, tidal and inertial forces at work keeping the mantle warm and churning.

  139. Henry chance (09:38:53) :

    Mann is still on his ego trip.

    If he had any good judgement, he would keep quiet. This endeavor on his part may backfire. He also will find Jones may counter attack him. Mann needs to take a time out and go to Siberia and look at some tree rings on a field trip.

    I would suggest that this time of year in Siberia he might want some warmer tree rings. Maybe time to throw a few on the fire.

  140. Regarding Santer et al’s “hacker” claim, and stressing how this was a criminal act, this morning on NPR’s Marketplace Morning Report Stephen Beard took it a step further to say that “Climate-change skeptics hacked into computer records…”.
    The implication seems to be that this is all a deliberate, well-timed, and “desperate” attempt by skeptics to try to undermine COP15. In short, IT’S A CONSPIRACY!

    Beard goes on to say that the BBC quoted “a senior Saudi official saying this will have a huge impact on the Copenhagen conference. Every country under pressure, he says, to curb its emissions could now seize on these e-mails and say why should we damage our economy when there is still, apparently, serious doubt about climate change.”
    He concludes by saying “there is plenty of other evidence that climate change is man-made”, but “this does seem to surface” next week in Copenhagen, a strange way of saying that it will certainly be an issue there. Apparently Beard and Eaton will both be there, and reporting from there.

  141. Well Mann has thrown Jones under the bus but I wonder if he’s seen Zombie Land?

    Rule# 2 Double Tap…. Don’t be stingy with your ammo and make sure the zombie is truly dead, otherwise the zombie may get up and bite you….

    I wonder how long it will take before Jones rolls over and starts nailing Mann…

  142. this is what Mann does best: intimidate and screw up people! but so does Phil J, so we’re in for a great show, once they come out in public.

  143. I don’t thing it will be long before Mann joins Jones in the sin-bin. Good thing too as these men are dangerous with hockey sticks, which can be lethal weapons in the wrong hands.

    @ Benjamin D. Santer, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison,
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

    You’re wrong about the UEA CRU/GISS/IPCC leak. The problem the cabal has with the emails, programs, data and other documents contained in the package is that there is sufficient material to get plenty of context, and the main take from them is that you and the other IPCC consensus scientists are very poor at real science.

    The document shows you have all lost three things vital to any scientist – scepticism, respect for the truth and the courage to accept when your wrong and move on. Every statistical trick, exaggerated alarmist graph, and biased peer review proclaims you all as worthless puppets of the politicians who pay your wage. Each paper produced without the raw data, and each FOIA request refused shows how just how scared you all are that the figures don’t add up.

    Come on, be brave and tell us sceptics here why global average temperature has stayed flat for the last 10 years when CO2 has risen c5% – we’ve had two very weak hurricane seasons – the Arctic ice is recovering – the Antartic ice is growing – Greenland still isn’t green – the modelled equatorial atmospheric hotspot has not been found.

    Our climate is a deterministic chaotic system and behaves like a homoeostatic system (the more energy you put in, the more gets pushes out). Change is the normal for our climate at all time scales and man’s tiny 1% or so of total GHG’s has no effect – turbulence and boundary effects are the main drivers, which means climate will always be unpredictable beyond short time scales.

    To sum up, the hypothesis of CAGW caused by increased levels of CO2 is falsified – panic and political macjinations not required.

    Some honest answers please Mr. Benjamin D. Santer, lets have no more IPCC scares and media spin. Truth and self respect are worth far more than personal gain.

  144. Richard Holle (05:04:21) :
    “Finding the truth, and using it are my agenda:
    Asking questions, and finding answers to compare, to further evaluate, gives us a gathering of knowledge, to evaluate the hypothesis skeptically, while figuring out better questions, to ask for the next set of trials.”

    Reply: Couldn’t agree more with you. Science is all about facts and the truth – it is not about belief and defending entrenched and untenable hypotheses to the last Mann, as is happening with CAGW.

    Only from real knowledge can wisdom ensue. The unbiased observer is the most import element in scientific discovery, and the ability to examine things from different points of view is a rare attribute only gifted to few.

    I find your work interesting. as you try to find mechanisms to explain apparent correlations to events and rhythms in our wider climate ‘exosphere’. If we don’t look at all the factors that could effect our chaotic climate system, we will never find the truth.

    It’s very interesting that Piers Corbyn, of Weather Action, hinted that he used similar methods to you to give long-range weather forecasts. I think it would be worth your time to contact him, if you haven’t already done so?

    Predicting the climate is very important to the development of humanity. If we know the direction events are going, we have the time to adapt and prepare.

    Good look on your quest for knowledge.

  145. The BBC has started to wake up to this story (or, perhaps and far more likely, can no longer strive to conceal it). Newsnight tonight had a rather bizarre and uninformative slugging match between Watson in the red corner (UEA prof of some sort) and Murano in the blue corner (AGW-sceptic politico). The BBC have come in on the ground floor, haven’t really taken their coats off yet, and were using the academic to put forward the original CRU spin/spiel that there’s nothing wrong with the science, that the CRU and its cohorts are good guys really and that a few emails with phrases like “hide the decline” or reams of odium academicum calling for the screwing of any critics are of no import (!!**Don’t mention the code**!!).

    I suppose we have to be glad that the outfit whose motto is “Nation shall speak truth to nation”, or some such, have finally found the bottle to even discuss the issue, let alone inform the narcoleptic nation who are paying both for them and for the CRU. Sadly they are far too far up the posterior of the UK government to be disinterested reporters (as was exactly the case too with our MPs’ expenses scandal) and the “discussion” was prefaced by the usual spectacled “science” reporter with her laptop showing lots of clips of hurricanes, big waves, deserts etc; the usual pathetic fallacy (I await correction on my probable misuse of this concept).

    That said though, the story is now finally getting out of the blogs and into the MSM – but there’s no room for complacency here; the polticians are the ones who count and they are (at least in the UK) in absolute denial of the seriousness of the evidence. We are still heretics who can be ignored or abused. Let’s not stop now, there may well be a new crusade to silence this – it happened after the shock of the failure of Jesus to return at the Millennium, it can happen again. A reading of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds helps to put all this into its real context.

  146. Perhaps my last post was too previous. Newsnight are now running “out of control earth” clips, floods, kids dying, meteorites hurtling into the ground, forest fires, Mayan calendars, disintegration of the planet – all under the banner of an arts report on current environmental-catastrophe-NOW! movies. Q: “Why are we so drawn to these images of destruction” A:”We have no sense of hope in the future” followed by a guy (movie critic or similar) saying that we *are facing unprecedented crisis in his analysis of the movies. Sheesh.

  147. Richard Lawson

    Glad to be of help.

    Did you see Newsnight this evening? I have e-mailed the following to Anthony for his info:

    Hi, Anthony,

    “Just watched this current affairs programme on BBC TV. It featured a piece on climate change with interviews by a Professor Watson of UEA (a colleague of Phil Jones) and Paul Manoca (may have got the name wrong but he is a leading skeptic in the US).

    Anyway he gave Watson such a torrid time that at one point Watson snapped at him. ‘Shut up a minute!’ At the end of the interview, Watson said, ‘What an a****le!’ before the camera and sound faded on him!!

    There was a hurried, but not too convincing apology from the presenter some minutes later.

    What this said to me was that the AGW lobby KNOWS it is losing the argument and is getting desperate to know what to do about it.

    I expect (and hope) this incident will find its way onto Youtube. I expect (and anticipate) it will be edited out of the BBC iPlayer transmissions.

  148. RichieP – went to the telegraph article re: Gordon Brown. Wish there was a comments section but couldn’t find one. Brown is the dunce who sold a large chunk of UK gold at bargain basement prices when he was chancellor of the exchequer. I don’t give him much credit for having insight or foresight. The man is a menace. He’s proposing satellite tracking of the world’s citizens to monitor their energy use.

  149. @andersm

    If you’ve ever read Guido Fawkes’ political blog (if you’re not UK based you probably haven’t/wouldn’t), you’ll know that he has a Curse of Jonah (Brown) meme. If Guido is right (and he tends to be far more reliable than almost anything you read in the MSM) then the thermomaniacs, a nice neologism coined by Simon Heffer in the DT today, are done for. Everything this man touches turns to rubble. And it’s absolutely no surprise that ZanuLabour want to have the entire globe on CCTV. Here in UK we are already the most spied upon people in the world and it’s all to ensure that we behave ourselves like Brown and his crypto-Stalinist cohorts want us to – we are all regarded as guilty even before we’ve done anything. Today, Abingdon shopping centre; tomorrow, the world! And AGW is the perfect scare vehicle to achieve it, far better than Osama Bin Laden, because you can milk masses of tax out of it too. They are not going to give up easily and they will resort, on the basis of the evidence we have in the UK, to every oppressive means to win.

Comments are closed.